Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just finished reading The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. Most may recognize this man as the prosecutor for the Charles Manson cases. He is a very well respected and extremely credible prosecutor/lawyer. I'm sure many right off the bat of hearing that Title or seeing it at a bookstore would immediately cast it off as 'fringe' or ludicrous. Two reasons that may happen: 1.) People find the notion of even prosecuting a President of the United absolutely impossible or for some, it shouldn't even happen. That would hurt America or whatever reason they want to give. 2.) To then prosecute the President for murder and specifically, over four thousand murders seems borderline insanity.

However, dismiss all of those preconceived notions you may or may not have about Vincent, about the Title of the book and about President George W. Bush. The author does a remarkable job of disspelling all of those notions and building a staggering case against the President that seems plausible and feels you with hope that someday it may actually come to frution; even if ten years from now. I myself am going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you read this book in full and aren't outraged, you are missing a heart and a soul (and especially a brain). Now that isn't to say I think you should actually agree with Vincent in that Bush should be charged with the deaths of over four thousand dead American soldiers. However, I believe you would concur with Vincent and with others, that at the least Bush has committed crimes and should be placed in a court of justice to adhere to these crimes.

There are certain points I want to highlight in my review. There is an incredible amount of content here. So I'll try to be quick. And even if you haven't read the book, I do this in such a way where it doesn't matter. Also, some of the later ones are points where I disagree with Vincent's assessment of a given situation.

Starting with page thirteen Vincent starts with the above point I made. He suggests dismissing Thoreau's statement that 'it is very difficult to see what is right in front of our eyes'. Get rid of the notion that just because he is the President, he can't engage in something of great criminality. For some, regular Americans and politicians alike, the Presidency is something of an institution to be protected at all costs or else we harm our image as America and Americans. I would say, we harm our image as America and Americans if we tolerate criminality from a President.

Going to page seventeen makes an incredible point (one of many). After the WMD reason for going to war against Saddam in Iraq was dismissed, Bush and his cronies came up with the reason for going to war was to 'free the Iraqi people from Saddam's despotic rule'. But we all know, we all know we would never have gone to war if that was the main reason from the beginning. No American would have accepted that war. As Vincent says, "If that is justification for going to war; over the last seventy-five years, every day of every year we would be in wars all over the globe." As he goes on to say, "We would have been fighting, in among other places, Russia, China, and Cambodia. At this moment, we'd be fighting in Darfur, Iran, North Korea , Cuba, etc." To further illustrate his point, Vince suggets, "What if we invaded Russia in 1950? To free the Russian people from Stalin's rule? After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a brutal, bloody war, we topple Stalin. We bring him to justice and execute him. We then go home and then proceed to invade China to free the Chinese people of Mao's rule. If this sounds crazy to you, its because it is." I agree Vincent. We don't have the treasure and we certainly don't have the blood to die for all of mankind to be free.

Jumping to page thirty-five. If this section of the book doesn't infuriate you, nothing will. Getting the past (for now) the idea that Bush lied and manipulated the country to go to war, he sent the soldiers to war without the proper equipment. That's abominable as Vincent says. Soldiers were literally writing home asking for loved ones to send body armor.

And getting to the even more infuriating part, if this doesn't make you want to punch Rumsfeld in the face, you're insane. Donald spoke to a group of soldiers December 8th, 2004 and a National Guard Specalist stood up and asked Rumsfeld, "Troops have to forage for 'rusted scrap metal and ballistic glass that's already been shot up, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat'." The soldier goes on to say, "Why do we have to search landfills for armor?"

Rumsfeld responds, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." As Vincent points out, that statement would only apply if Iraq had invaded us in which case we'd have to make due with what we have. But Bush, Rumsfeld and others had all the time in the world to make preparations for the Iraq War.

Turning to page forty-five now with a fist. Make no mistake about it and as unfortunate as it is, American soldiers have not died for America or Americans. They have not died for this idea of freedom. They have died for President Bush and his cronies. I've felt this for a while, but Vincent definitely makes note of it. And of course, Bush, Cheney, Rove and others all skipped out on going to war during their respective generations time.

And a scary poll shown by Vincent that over '90% of the United States Soldiers as late as 2006 thought they were fighting in Iraq due to Iraq and Saddam being involved in 9/11'. That is utterly grotesque that they are dying for something that doesn't exist.

A funny point (yet also disturbing) on page fifty-seven. Vincent makes note of the fact that out of the 2,535 days of the Bush Presidency, Bush has spent (during a time of war mind you) 908 of those days on vacation (or 36% of his Presidency). That's two and a half years of a less than seven year Presidency (at the time this book was written) on vacation. That's incredible.

Vincent brings up a shocking, but entirely true point (that I'm ashamed of myself) on page seventy-five. A very sad tale is that the only people asked to sacrifice in this country over the Iraq War have been the soldiers and the families of those soldiers. Which makes up a very small segment of the population. That's sad. Vincent shows a quote from an Iraqi soldier that states, "The president can say we're a country at war all he wants. We're not. The military is at war. And the military families are at war. Everybody else is shopping, or watching American Idol." I thought that was a poignant quote myself.

Once more, another point you don't want to miss by Vincent on page ninety-two. Some will say, "Bush can't be prosecuted for murder of the soldiers if Congress, by a joint congressional resolution, authorized him to use force against Iraq." He answers that by saying, "The congressional authorization is no legal defense against murder." Consent of the victim is a defense for crimes such as theft and rape. But not murder. Also, even if it was law (consent being a defense for murder) it would be 'fraud vitiates consent'. The Congress were lied to just as much as the American people and the American soldiers.

Just a small quote I want to bring to everyone's attention on page ninety-seven. One that packs a powerful punch and can't be properly answered in my view. The example by Vincent is, "What difference does it make if someone intends to kill person B or doesn't intended to kill B but intends to do an act that he knows will kill B?" Therefore to me and apparently Vincent, there is no difference between being killed by Saddam and being killed by America.

On page one hundred and two, Vincent discusses a question I never before knew the answer to. If the whole country thought that Saddam constituted a grave threat to this country (even if we found he had no WMD's), why is it preposterous that Bush did to? In other words, apologists want to suggest Bush was actually acting in self-defense. But wrong. Bush and his people are the ones that came up with the silly notion that Saddam was a grave threat to this nation.

Also apologists ridiculously say Bush never used the word 'imminent'. He didn't have to as Vincent suggests. From the context of any Bush speech, no other inference could be drawn but that Bush was asserting that American was in imminent danger or harm from Saddam. Furthermore, he used words or phrases that meant imminent like Iraq could act 'on any given day'; that 'before the day of horror can come, before it is too late to act, this danger must be removed'; 'a threat of unique urgency'; 'Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack in as little as forty-five minutes' and so on.

Vincent continues building his case against Bush on page one hundred and thirty-two. Hans Blix that UN's Chief Weapons inspector in Iraq disagreed with Saddam and Iraq that there missiles were not in the appropriate range set by the UN, they were destroyed. Bush then asserted that the destroying of these missiles (as per the request of the UN and obliged by Saddam) was the 'mother of all distractions'. In other words as Vincet says, "We want to go to war. Quit distracting us by proving the war is unnecessary."

Flipping page to one hundred and thirty-four begins with a quote from Blix, "The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. The Americans needed Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction to justify war." So once Bush realized that the inspectors were slowly coming to the conclusion that there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, Bush came up with a new demand. He knew Saddam would never comply with it and thus, his haste to get to war would continue without impediment. He ordered Saddam and his family to get out of Iraq. Before all of this though, Bush had only said, "If Hussein were to meet all the conditions of the UN (which he was), that in itself will signal that the regime has changed." Earlier Bush says something even more damning, "By taking these steps to disarm (and they were), the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict..." So comply with UN Resolution 1441 to disarm (something we all know he did after the Gulf War) and avoid war. Nope. Bush through in another rule to try to bring about war. Sickening.

Essentially only moving to page one hundred and thirty-five and thirty-six, Vincent addresses the silly disdain for France before the Iraq War. France never opposed the idea of going to war with France however. It only opposed Bush's ludicrous haste to war. Who doesn't want to avoid armed conflict if plausible? The President of France three days before war stated, "France is not pacifist. We are not anti-American either." He goes on to say an I'm paraphrasing that we simply want to exercise all possibilities of diplomacy first and foremost. After all, we quickly forget that when the world realized Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11 and Afghanistan was protecting bin Laden France sent thousands of soldiers to Afghanistan to help us. Americans are idiots. Chirac (President of France) simply wanted to wait for the weapons inspections that would merely take a few more months. Cheney responded by saying these were just further 'delaying tactics'. Translation: Let's get on with the ****in' war!

Turning the page to one hundred and thirty-nine. I remember hearing the following story in a documentary (the title of which eludes me) and it still almost brings a tear to my eye. Wilson Sekzer lost his son Jason in 9/11. He said, "After 9/11, I thought, I gotta do something. Somebody has to pay for 9/11. I want the enemy dead. I want to see their bodies stacked up for taking my son. That's when President Bush said 'Iraq'. On the basis of that, I thought we should go there and kick Iraq's ass. And I wanted Jason to have a part in it. So I asked to put his name on a bomb." Later when he watched television and saw Bush in a response to a reporter's question, saying, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with 9/11," Wilson recalled saying, "What is he talking about? If Saddam didn't have anything to do with 9/11, then why did we go there?"

Obviously Bush could never come right out and say Saddam was linked to 9/11 because he knew it wasn't true. So like he did earlier with the word 'imminent' he used phrases and words that nobody could infer but that he was linking 9/11 to Saddam and Iraq. If this isn't as Vincent suggests 'circumstancial evidence' that Bush wasn't responsible for lying to the American people to go to war, nothing is.

On pages one hundred and forty-one and forty-two, further evidence of Bush lying about implying a connection between Saddam and 9/11 is that when Saddam was captured, Bush said the Iraqi people, not America, would mete out justice to Hussein. Wouldn't he have been prosecuted in America for the deaths of 3,000 Americans? For the last two years Bush made clear innuendo at the fact that Saddam was linked to 9/11. So what gives?

This next facet of information is new to me. I've never heard it before and it almost floors me in utter disbelief. Page one hundred and forty-nine you'll find a story about Bush and Tony Blair (Prime Minister of Britain) at the White House a few months before the invasion of Iraq. David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a memo detailing the discussion (he was there along with a few others). In it, Bush and Blair discussed doubts that any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would ever be found in Iraq and tension arised between the two over finding justification for war. Manning wrote that Bush spoke of a few scenarios to prove justification for war to other nations; 'provoke a confrontation' with Saddam. Bush stated, "Fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, falsely painted in UN colors. If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach." Bush in speeches kept going on and on about Saddam 'forcing' us to go to War, that we didn't want to. Yet, behind closed doors this ****ing bastard is talking about actually provoking Saddam into war? What the hell?

Jumping to page one hundred and seventy-three Vincent strikes a strong point here against Bush. Bush himself, along with pundits and so forth (even Democrats) always talk about how Bush is 'strong on terrorism'. When in fact, Vincent says, Bush couldn't have been any worse against terrorism. But considering the ignorance of the American people (most of whom don't read newspapers and if they do, they skip the news and opinion sections), this bit of information (that Bush was 'strong on terrorism') remained in the American psyche up until 2006 even.

Going to page one hundred and seventy-six to further illustrate this point, I'm sure many have heard of the CIA memo given to Bush over a month before 9/11 titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US." This differed from previous information in that it actually said, 'in' the US not outside of the US. It even spoke of 'hijacking' and federal buildings, even in New York City. Any sane President at that point, would have cut short their five week vacation and return to the White House to have a meeting with the intelligence agencies and so forth to assess the situation and see what was being done about it. The memo was given out on the sixth of August. Bush didn't return to the White House until the thirtieth. He didn't even speak to the head of the CIA (George Tenet) for the entire month of August. What the hell?

Flipping over to one hundred and eighty-two, Richard Clarke the counterterrorism chief for Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush said this about the Bush administration up to 9/11, "Bush ignored terrorism for months, when maybe he could have done something to stop 9/11. Instead terrorism was pushed back and back for months when it should have been top priority." Furthermore, Attorney General John Ashcroft submitted his budget for the DoJ cut counterterrorism by $476 million dollars. A 23% drop from the Clinton Administration.

On one hundred and eighty-six it gets really frustrating. All the Media could do after 9/11 was talk about how the United States intelligence agencies (mainly the CIA) failed to prevent 9/11. No blame was cast on President Bush (you know the man in charge and in charge specifically of the CIA and the other intelligence communities). Now obviously the intelligence communities did have some shortcomings, but they were specifically telling the executive branch that the red lights were flashing over the issue of Bin Laden. It was Bush who failed to act. It was his administration who failed to act on the intelligence given to them. Most Presidents (from Reagan with the issue of Beirut to JFK over the Bay of Pigs) have apologized for acts gone wrong under their watch. Bush didn't.

"Unbelievably," Vincent says, "Bush attempted to become the hero of 9/11 and unbelievably, he succeeded."

Page one hundred and eighty-eight really makes me cringe at how stupid Bush is and incompetent as President he is. Bush was told by his chief of staff Andrew Card after the second plane crashed into the Twin Towers that the 'nation is under attack'. Jesus Christ. Bush sat there with a stupid ****ing look on his face for another five to seven minutes. For godsakes, for all he knows an invasion, a nuke, chemical weapons, God anything could be next. He should have rushed to wherever he needed to go and begin assessing the situation. Even if both the planes in the Towers ended up being an accident, it was still a high level emergency to tend to.

Vincent points out that Bush was simply in a state of 'paralysis' because he had nobody by his side (like Dick) to help him. In his interview with the 9/11 Commission report he told a tremendously stupid lie. He said, "I stayed in the classroom because I wanted to project strength and calm until I could better understand what was happening." A few things wrong with that. 1.) He didn't look strong or calm, he looked frightened and stupid. 2.) Project strength and calm to whom? The seven year olds? 3.) How can you better understand what is happening sitting in a classroom? This incident mostly went ignored by our stupid Media.

Vincent again addresses the issue American stupidity and the Meida's stupidity on page one hundred and ninety-five. Vincent says, "There really was only one essential message for Bush to deliver after the 9/11 attacks. And that was that he intended to bring justice to the perpetrators. Instead Bush also said we'd go after those countries that harbor terrorists. That was stupid because we know he didn't. We went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, created some in Iraq, but didn't go after those Israeli-Palestinian terrorists, Norther Ireland terrorists; or the plethora of other countries with terrorists like Lebanon, Sudan, Uganda, Myanmar, Colombia, Liberia, Sri Lanka and so many more.

Continuing the vein of stupidity, Bush told Congress that they attacked us because they 'hate all our freedoms'. Yeah, people blow themselves up because they hate our freedoms. That's so utterly asinine, I can't even fathom people actually subscribing to that belief. Foreign policy and other reasons play a role that I'm not going to expand on right now.

Vince states, "Credit necessarily implies a choice. You don't give credit for something somebody had no choice but to do. Bush had no choice but to say that 'we'd go after the perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice'. What else was he going to say? What else would any other President or human being have said? Yet amazingly, Bush's approval rating went up to 90% and we all fell in love with him."

A phrase we often heard after 9/11 was, "Aren't you glad now that Bush won?" As if Al Gore, had he won, would have said anything different than Bush. And perhaps though the only difference would be that if Gore was sitting in that classroom and heard that the 'nation was under attack' he would have at least done something (as in get out of the classroom) unlike that idiot Bush.

Page two hundred and six is probably the main section of the book that made me angry. Not just angry. ****ing angry. Angry enough that I'd like to storm into the Oval Office and punch Bush in the face. After 9/11, any logical thing to do would be for Congress to look into the tragedy. See where mistakes were made and hopefully highlight them so something like this doesn't happen again. Bush didn't want this. Repeat: Bush didn't want this. He didn't want an investigation into 9/11. There is no ****ing justifiable reason to withold an investigation into 9/11 by Congress.

My only issue with the 9/11 Commission report (that only came about because the 9/11 widows begged for it to happen -- think about it. The families of 9/11 victims had to beg Bush and Congress to let this investigation happen and continue to proceed. Bush didn't cooporate though. He was withholding precious information that pertained to the investigation) is as Vincent says, "They didn't ask aggressive questions. They are still politicians. They didn't ask the really tough questions."

On two hundred and fourteen comes the issue of Tora Bora. Why the **** where we leaving it up to the Northern Alliance (and the Pakistani military if necessary -- on the chance Bin Laden crossed the border) to do our job? Why weren't we fighting? We sent other people to capture Bin Laden. The guy that was complicit in the deaths of 3,000 American lives. Eight years later, the fact that outrage over Bin Laden still being a freeman is non-existant, bothers the hell out of me. Nobody seems to give a shit any more. So much for 'never forgetting' huh?

An analogy to be made: A man is seated with his wife at a restaurant table. He's armed okay. Someone else shoots his wife dead. Instead of chasing the man with the gun he possesses. He pays a guy at the bar to go do it. That's what we did with 9/11 and Osam Bin Laden in Afghanistan. American soldiers didn't fight the war in Afghanistan technically until five months after the war started.

I take back what I said, this next quote by President Bush on page two hundred and twenty may be on equal footing with the section of Bush stopping the 9/11 Commission. In a March 13th, 2002 press conference (not very long after 9/11 mind you) a reporter said to Bush, "Mr. President, in your speeches now, you rarely talk about or mention Osama Bin Laden. Why is that?" The man who vowed to get Bin Laden 'dead or alive' answers, "This is a fellow (nice word for a criminal) who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide." (Bush coud have been referring to himself considering he committed young soldiers to die for a wrongful, unjustifiable war and he himself, hid out during the Vietnam War thanks to his Daddy's help.) Then he says amazingly enough, "So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, to be honest with you...I truly am not that concerned about him."

What the ****? He wasn't that concerned about Bin Laden? The man that orchstrated the deaths of 3,000 Americans? Yeah, I forgot around this time we were already shifting gears towards the Iraq War and Saddam Hussein, resources away from Afghanistan and the capturing of bin Laden. Ridiculous.

Another admission of ludicrous nonsense from Bush on page two hundred and twenty-four, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September 11th." Normally, you would think the Media would be all over this. Yet, nope. They weren't. You would think Americans would be outraged. But nope they weren't. Congress? Nope. This was the lie perpetrated by Bush and his cronies that Saddam was indeed linked to September the 11th via Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Yet, now six months after the war is started, Bush clearly says there are no connections.

Vincent talks about the claims of 'victory' in Iraq on page two hundred and thirty-one. "What victory? That Hussein was an imminent threat to the security of our country and we eliminated him and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction? That there is a real democracy in Iraq, and this democracy is spreading through the Middle East? That Bin Laden has been captured and executed and his Al Qaeda destroyed and they are no longer a threat to our nation?"

"In other words," Vincent states, "instead of the absolutely horrible and intolerable situation in today's Iraq being viewed as terrible but better than it once was, it is viewed as good because it's not as bad as it once was." The past doesn't matter anymore. The in which we arrived at this blunder doesn't matter. The troops being not equipped doesn't matter. The post-war planning (or should I say lack thereof) doesn't matter. The lies and deceptions don't matter. The 4,000 dead soldiers doesn't matter. The 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians doesn't matter. The thousands left physically and mentally damaged or Iraqi civilians displaced doesn't matter. Why? Victory and honor. Bullshit.

Vincent makes another great observation on page one hundred and thirty-five. Paul Krugman, a liberal columnist for the New York Times in reference to the 2006 elections (where the Democrats gained marginal control over the House and Senate) stated, "the nation has finally, finally turned on the administration of George W. Bush because we are fed up with the excesses of right-wing policies, and more importantly, we finally realize that going to war in Iraq was wrong."

"It had nothing to do with that," Vincent asserts, "It had virtually everything to do with the fact that we had lost the war in Iraq, with no end in sight." He goes on to stay very poignantly, "Do you really think the perception, polls and opinions of Bush would be the same had we succeeded in Iraq? Would we say invading Iraq was wrong? His approval rating would still be in excess of 50%."

Most Americans don't care. Most when interviewed wish we would have just turned the Middle East into a 'parking lot' with our nukes. Scary.

Finally I arrive at an area of disagreement with Vincent on page two hundred and thirty-eight. Not over Bush or anything. But over his ideas on government and the way government ought to be. He is a liberal. But he presented his case free of partisanship in my view. Nonetheless, he talks about healthcare and helping the poor and various other things should be the main functions of government. I obviously disagree as a libertarian. But I won't divulge into that because I want to keep the main focus on the content of the prosecution of Bush for murder.

Flipping over to page two hundred and forty-one, Vincent takes aim at our 'culture'. He starts with condemning movies with gratutious violence and sex. Apparently he hasn't seen very many foreign films that are far more risque and 'boundary-pushing' than anything Hollywood can fathom. Then he goes on to talk about how teenagers have changed over the issue of oral sex and so forth. Essentially, the usual line of thought from older generations that their generations were different or somehow, more moral and less grotesque and negative about things. Nothing has changed. The past was violent, sexed up and had its mix of bad films and music as today does. Sure certain things in the past are great, but certain parts are also very romanticized greatly. Nothing has changed except the media. The media opens that window into our reality greater than its ever been open creating this misconception that the past was some how the 'good old days'.

Finally, on page two hundred and forty-seven and eight, Vincent makes a contradiction. He talks (rightly in my view) about religion dominating America. About how Europeans are shedding religion while we warm up to it more and more. However, before that he was talking about how are moral compass was slipping. American can't be both more promiscuous and religious at the same time.

Then of course, ending on the above page, he discusses the U.S. Constitution. He actually thinks our Constitution can stop are slide down as a country. Wrong. He just detailed how a President walked all over the Constitution and wiped his ass with it, but thinks in the end, it actually has any power over politicians? Laughable.

Nonetheless, a few questions come to mind as I finish my review of this book. 1.) The Media certainly isn't a liberal media. It is a government media. That is evidenced by how the Media glossed over the early years of the Bush administration and ceased to be journalists. 2.) This misconception that the American Presidency should be protected at all costs should end. Nobody on this earth is above the law and certainly not the President of the United States. 3.) I will lose any semblance of respect I have for Barack Obama if he doesn't persue justice against President Bush at some point in his Presidency. It sets a dangerous precedent that a President can do whatever he wants. 4.) Americans should care more about what happens to their country and what the President is doing and stop feeling so detatched, apathetic and/or ignorant about what is going on. Stop the attitude of 'it's not a big deal' BS. Criminality is a big deal, especially by the government; you know the entity that is supposed to serve us. 5.) Don't forget the other Bush Administration activities. This is only the events circling the Iraq War. Don't forget the issue over torture, Bush hiring friends to important positions, Katrina, the horrible economy and a plethora of other things.

Overall, Vincent Bugliosi did a tremendous job. A superb and excellent and objective job of building his case against President Bush. I can't help but feel pessimistic about it though. Only in that, I know the American people and the American politicians just don't care enough to actually follow through with it. And I know that Bush will die a free man. That arrogant, cocky, God-loving son of a ***** will not atone for his crimes. The fact that this man was never impeached is ludicrous. The fact that Clinton was and hours and millions of dollars was poured into that investigation over something so trivial, is even more astounding.

If more vigor isn't put into bringing Bush and his cronies to justice, I'll lose faith in the very idea of justice and the American people. (By the way, out of four stars, I'd give this book four stars.)

Now, that's a lot of puddin'.

I'm not reading all that shit but anyone that wants G Dubya prosecuted for murder is a moron.

Originally posted by KidRock
I'm not reading all that shit but anyone that wants G Dubya prosecuted for murder is a moron.
And I addressed that very ridiculous attitude in the first few paragraphs and substantiate it throughout with the help of Vincent's book.

Why? Why are they a moron for bringing someone that broke the law to justice?

I think in time GWB will be proven right and vindicated a little by history.

Originally posted by BigRed
And I addressed that very ridiculous attitude in the first few paragraphs and substantiate it throughout with the help of Vincent's book.

Why? Why are they a moron for bringing someone that broke the law to justice?

Who did he murder, I wanna hear it in your own words..if I wanna read the book I will go buy it.

I think the point he's making is who's death he's caused.

Bush acted in the best interests of the nation with the information he was given. CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence all said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that is why Bush went to war.

If he was prosecuted for that what you would find is future presidents would not act decisively in urgent situations- all fearing prosecution upon leaving office.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Bush acted in the best interests of the nation with the information he was given. CIA, MI6 and Russian Intelligence all said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that is why Bush went to war.


Good point and one addressed specifically in the book. Iraq wasn't an urgent situation.

And most of the British were against the war unlike Americans. And Russia wasn't in haste to go to war. It seems you are chalking this up to an intelligence failure.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who did he murder, I wanna hear it in your own words..if I wanna read the book I will go buy it.
I make plenty of my own words throughout the course of the posts.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

Originally posted by BigRed
Good point and one addressed specifically in the book. Iraq wasn't an urgent situation.

And most of the British were against the war unlike Americans. And Russia wasn't in haste to go to war. It seems you are chalking this up to an intelligence failure.

Most of the British didn't want to go to war with Hitler either.

Russia didn't want to go to war because it wasn't a target of any possible Iraqi violence. Fact is three leading intelligence services said Iraq had WMDs. I suspect the MOSAD probably did too- though they would ofcourse.

If Bush didn't act and Saddam had the WMDs and used them (lets remember the time Saddam said he was going to sail Nukes up the thames and destroy London) then you would be here right now demanding Bush was prosecuted for inaction.

Originally posted by BigRed
I make plenty of my own words throughout the course of the posts.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

murder = unlawful killing.

Killing someone during a war is not murder.

Should we charge all 100,000 soldiers in Iraq as accomplices to murder? If we can charge the Manson Family with it why shouldnt we the soldiers?

Originally posted by GGS
I think in time GWB will be proven right and vindicated a little by history.

I don't think that he will be as much proven right and vindicated, but that he will be shown not to be the God-aweful presedent that everyone thinks he was.

I mean you have to admit, he had some pretty bad policies in his time. (IE: NCLB)

Rather than argue the definition of murder, you should be arguing the reasons he lead the US to war, which resulted in the deaths of 4000 plus soldiers. No one has said he pulled any trigger himself and killed anyone, but rather that he knowingly lied to push the US to war.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Rather than argue the definition of murder, you should be arguing the reasons he lead the US to war, which resulted in the deaths of 4000 plus soldiers. No one has said he pulled any trigger himself and killed anyone, but rather that he knowingly lied to push the US to war.

Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Should presidents not trust their intelligence services now? Like someone else said should we make it known to presidents that if they make the wrong decision based on information that they will be prosecuted for it?

Originally posted by BigRed
I make plenty of my own words throughout the course of the posts.

However, he murdered over 4,000 Americans and 100,000 civilians (Iraqis) in this Iraq War. Now some will say, "Well, how can Bush be prosecuted for murders he didn't actually commit."

Well, Vincent has the best example. He prosecuted Charles Manson for murders he didn't actually commit.

Do you really want to open that flood gate?

If killing during war = murder then lets not only charge Bush but all soldiers, but lets also charge FDR (Got us into WWII) Lincoln (Civil War)... Heck, lets even give this country back to the British because of our murderous revolution.

Originally posted by KidRock
Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Pretty sure it was the CIA, British intel, and Russian intel...

Originally posted by KidRock
Bush went off evidence provided to him by the CIA and other intelligence agencies.

Should presidents not trust their intelligence services now? Like someone else said should we make it known to presidents that if they make the wrong decision based on information that they will be prosecuted for it?

Don't argue with me. I'm just pointing out that you likely know what you should be arguing and are clouding the issue with the semantics of murder.

No one is saying he pulled out a knife and stabbed someone behind the White House.

The problem this thread will encounter is it is all about whether or not the War in Iraq can be justified. What we will see is people try to use the ends to justify the means- the war has caused chaos therefore it cannot be justified. That is the argument that will be deployed. Fact is however, with the evidence put forward the President acted in a manner that he felt was appropriate and a manner that was supported by his staff and leaders from across the world.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Most of the British didn't want to go to war with Hitler either.

Russia didn't want to go to war because it wasn't a target of any possible Iraqi violence. Fact is three leading intelligence services said Iraq had WMDs. I suspect the MOSAD probably did too- though they would ofcourse.

If Bush didn't act and Saddam had the WMDs and used them (lets remember the time Saddam said he was going to sail Nukes up the thames and destroy London) then you would be here right now demanding Bush was prosecuted for inaction.
No because the idea that Saddam had nukes was only perpetuated by the CIA because of pressure to produce results. Everyone always says all these other intelligence communities in other countries said Iraq specifically had WMD's, I'd like to see that proof.

Regardless, most of those countries weren't in a rush to war like us. And regardless, the weapons inspectors of the UN were proving (as I say in my posts here if people would actually read them) there weren't any.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The problem this thread will encounter is it is all about whether or not the War in Iraq can be justified.

correct.

Originally posted by KidRock
murder = unlawful killing.

Killing someone during a war is not murder.

Should we charge all 100,000 soldiers in Iraq as accomplices to murder? If we can charge the Manson Family with it why shouldnt we the soldiers?
Because they were misled like anyone else. 90% still thought Saddam was linked to 9/11 in the year 2006.

As for the legalities and technical stuff, I can't expand on it as much as I'd like to. I'm not a lawyer. Read the book and let the lawyer do all of that explaining.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Do you really want to open that flood gate?

If killing during war = murder then lets not only charge Bush but all soldiers, but lets also charge FDR (Got us into WWII) Lincoln (Civil War)... Heck, lets even give this country back to the British because of our murderous revolution.
What flood gate? Actually, for the most part the SC denounced most of what Lincoln did and many do denounce him for starting the Civil War. That's a different issue though.

If you want to talk about all the legality and so forth as I said read the book. Vincent can explain it better than I can.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Pretty sure it was the CIA, British intel, and Russian intel...
Again, the CIA had it's shortcomings, but it definitely was pressured by Bush to come up with results and again the UN Inspectors certainly weren't finding WMD's. Bush wanted war and he was going to get it.

BigRed, you are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The problem this thread will encounter is it is all about whether or not the War in Iraq can be justified. What we will see is people try to use the ends to justify the means- the war has caused chaos therefore it cannot be justified. That is the argument that will be deployed. Fact is however, with the evidence put forward the President acted in a manner that he felt was appropriate and a manner that was supported by his staff and leaders from across the world.
Actually that's not a fact in the least.

Vincent's book pretty much knocks down that ludicrous idea quite easily.

His staff are co-conspirators to murder.

And most leaders didn't support and most people around the world did not.

The best example is France. They were quick to help us in Afghanistan, but were aghast at our haste to fight in Iraq wondering why we were so quick to want to go there. They wanted to wait just a few more months (if less than that) to exercise full diplomacy you know so to avoid armed conflict. But Bush didn't want that.

I agree with France's position and I would not have gone to war.

However the Presidency must be free to continue to act decisively in emergency.

This was an emergency in the eyes of the Intelligence Staff- the President did not act wrongly, perhaps he was a little hasty but he did not break the law.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree with France's position and I would not have gone to war.

However the Presidency must be free to continue to act decisively in emergency.

This was an emergency in the eyes of the Intelligence Staff- the President did not act wrongly, perhaps he was a little hasty but he did not break the law.
Why was going to Iraq an 'emergency'? Because Bush said it was?

Again like I stated, you have (and there is nothing wrong with it -- its rational) many preconceived notions of the Presidency and that time period. You couldn't imagine Bush would act criminally.

Disspell those notions and look objectively at the situation. It isn't like I'd like to see a President become a criminal and prosecuted.

If you read the book and still possess the same idea, then we'll talk okay.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree with France's position and I would not have gone to war.

However the Presidency must be free to continue to act decisively in emergency.

This was an emergency in the eyes of the Intelligence Staff- the President did not act wrongly, perhaps he was a little hasty but he did not break the law.

It's not that simple, though. The President has the authority to send military personnel on missions as he or she sees fit. However, the question here is if he was complicit in using faulty intelligence to further his own agenda. One thing that can not be argued is that a number of his "cronies", as the thread starter called them, have financially benefitted from this war.

That's relatively absurd. George bush is just a peon who does what they tell him to. His only crime is declaring war without congress, and that's because he's doing what he's told. Constitutionally congress is the only one that can declare war.

Bush didn't declare war without congress.

congress didn't pass the motion to declare war so constitutionally we were illegally at war. There hasn't been a real declaration of war since FDR addressed congress and thirty-three minutes later they passed the notion to go to war.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
It's not that simple, though. The President has the authority to send military personnel on missions as he or she sees fit. However, the question here is if he was complicit in using faulty intelligence to further his own agenda. One thing that can not be argued is that a number of his "cronies", as the thread starter called them, have financially benefitted from this war.
There is a well made argument in the book about Bush pressuring intelligence and fitting it around his agenda. I can't put everything in the book in here though (nobody would read all this anyways). It certainly is worth picking up the book.

Vincent Bugliosi isn't some fringe conspiracy theorist. He is a very well respect and credible lawyer and probably one of the best of the 20th century.

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Bush didn't declare war without congress.
Congress essentially did something they weren't supposed to do but have done it since WW2 many times: passed the buck to the President on authorization of war.

But I've now seen that Congress was just as duped as the American soldiers and Americans themselves.

Correct.

Originally posted by BigRed
Congress essentially did something they weren't supposed to do but have done it since WW2 many times: passed the buck to the President on authorization of war.

But I've now seen that Congress was just as duped as the American soldiers and Americans themselves.

And President himself.

Infact, I am just going to say it.

This thread is nonsense, mistakes were made and people paid terribly for those mistakes. However the popular consensus is to put all the blame on one man- Bush.

Fact is, Congress agreed to the War as did most of the American Nation.

BigRed's argument is either that Bush didn't have enough information to warrant a war or he fabricated the information. Doing either means he failed in his duty.

If he failed in his duty then so did Congress and so did the American people. They did not demand more evidence or say the evidence given wasn't valid. They said to the President. OK!

All of the United States then, shares the blood of Iraq.

(atleast, that is how it would play out if BigRed got his silly wish and the President went on trial)

Not a thing will come of this, on matter your opinion. Bush won't stand trial and he probably shouldn't.

I think the man has been something of a spectacular failure but I do believe he did what he thought was right at the time and that we likely have more important things to do then to waste time trying to charge an ex president with murder while the country crumbles economically.

Obama has pretty much flat out said that this won't happen.

Hey, you can't blame the guy for trying to sell a book and make some pocket change.

No, I can't.

I'm actually the author.

i don't know if we were the ones but i agree that something had to be done in iraq. For instance: wife back-talks you. Cops take wife away. Before a big soccer game they line up all of the wives who have expressed free thinking and chop off their heads in the center of the arena to the roaring crowd. I'd say iraq got its just deserts.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
And President himself.
How can the person who originated the BS story be himself duped? That doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Infact, I am just going to say it.

This thread is nonsense, mistakes were made and people paid terribly for those mistakes. However the popular consensus is to put all the blame on one man- Bush.

Fact is, Congress agreed to the War as did most of the American Nation.

BigRed's argument is either that Bush didn't have enough information to warrant a war or he fabricated the information. Doing either means he failed in his duty.

If he failed in his duty then so did Congress and so did the American people. They did not demand more evidence or say the evidence given wasn't valid. They said to the President. OK!

All of the United States then, shares the blood of Iraq.

(atleast, that is how it would play out if BigRed got his silly wish and the President went on trial)
Because the American people are stupid! The majority that is. Our Media failed us. And how are we to look deeper into information at the current time if the Media is failing us? It was a very unique time after 9/11 when most Americans lost their clarity.

None of this (Congress agreeing to the Iraq War, Americans agreeing to the War, the Media failing us, 100,000 dead civilians, over 4,000 dead Americans, Afghanistan falling back to chaos and so forth and so on) if Bush and his cronies had not originated the idea of invading Iraq (long before 9/11...ever heard of the PNAC?).

So then the Media should be put on trial as well?

And now you're going on into conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hey, you can't blame the guy for trying to sell a book and make some pocket change.
If he was trying to sell a book, his partisanship politics along with a poorly constructed case against Bush would fall flat. They don't.

Like I said, this is a very well respected and credible Author. The book has mostly been ignored. So I doubt profit was on his mind. What profit does someone in there 70's desire? You haven't even read the book (and probably not my posts either) and you're already passing judgement on the author. Not even adddressing the content provided.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not a thing will come of this, on matter your opinion. Bush won't stand trial and he probably shouldn't.

I think the man has been something of a spectacular failure but I do believe he did what he thought was right at the time and that we likely have more important things to do then to waste time trying to charge an ex president with murder while the country crumbles economically.

Obama has pretty much flat out said that this won't happen.
And if it doesn't under Obama, he deserves no respect from me. Some candidate of change.

This book proves quite clearly that Bush knew what he was doing (as in premeditated) and that he wasn't an accident of 'good intentions'.

the government declares the war to be just and defines criminal action as different than the actions made by the Bush administration

ipso facto, Bush isn't guilty

Originally posted by Final Blaxican
So then the Media should be put on trial as well?

And now you're going on into conspiracy theories.
I don't subscribe to BS conspiracy theories. The PNAC is not a conspiracy theory. Project for the New American Century was some stupid crap neoconservatives came up with in the '90's I believe.

You really should read the book. Also, consent of the victim means nothing with regards to the crime of murder. The Media failed us, but they wouldn't have been able to 'fail us' had Bush and his people not originated a lie.

Prove Bush fabricated the War in Iraq stuff. Then we'll talk. (When that proof is found he will be arrested.)

You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by inimalist
the government declares the war to be just and defines criminal action as different than the actions made by the Bush administration

ipso facto, Bush isn't guilty
I don't care what the government says about this war. The war wasn't a just one and still isn't a just one.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Prove Bush fabricated the War in Iraq stuff. Then we'll talk. (When that proof is found he will be arrested.)

You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!
Even if you read all of my original posts in this thread, you probably still wouldn't agree with me. But if you did that, any sane person would be convinced that at the least, Bush lied and deceived his way to war (you don't have to accept that he's actually guilty of murder). If you read the book, the clarity of that statement (that Bush lied to go to war) becomes obvious.

I don't see what people are assuming here. I don't have some conspiracy agenda. I don't have a political agenda. The only agenda I have here is the truth and justice.

Originally posted by BigRed
And if it doesn't under Obama, he deserves no respect from me. Some candidate of change.

This book proves quite clearly that Bush knew what he was doing (as in premeditated) and that he wasn't an accident of 'good intentions'.

Actually, if you look at the very PNAC you are promoting, the hawks CLEARLY (though wrongfully) assumed that Saddam was the leading contributer and funder of all types of Jihadi violence (and there is clear evidence he was a supporter of various Jihad causes).

The justification for going after Hussein in that very document (iirc) is his support for anti-American sentiment.

The whole mess is a textbook case of confirmation bias. The people of america and their leaders had a very specific scape goat in mind when they found out the terrorists were Arab Muslim.

EDIT: it is either the PNAC or other wolfowitz documents made by the same think tank

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't care what the government says about this war. The war wasn't a just one and still isn't a just one.

thats fine, I agree

"murder" is a legal term that the government will get to decide for itself if it committed.

Originally posted by BigRed
Even if you read all of my original posts in this thread, you probably still wouldn't agree with me. But if you did that, any sane person would be convinced that at the least, Bush lied and deceived his way to war (you don't have to accept that he's actually guilty of murder). If you read the book, the clarity of that statement (that Bush lied to go to war) becomes obvious.

I don't see what people are assuming here. I don't have some conspiracy agenda. I don't have a political agenda. The only agenda I have here is the truth and justice.

You are part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by BigRed
If he was trying to sell a book, his partisanship politics along with a poorly constructed case against Bush would fall flat. They don't.

Like I said, this is a very well respected and credible Author. The book has mostly been ignored. So I doubt profit was on his mind. What profit does someone in there 70's desire? You haven't even read the book (and probably not my posts either) and you're already passing judgement on the author. Not even adddressing the content provided.

He is trying to sell a book, that's just a fact. That doesn't take away from his point though.

I haven't read it, does he prove beyond the shadow of a doubt or at least within probable cause that Bush lied, fabricated the war etc. etc. etc., or is it full of speculation and what if's?

Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, if you look at the very PNAC you are promoting, the hawks CLEARLY (though wrongfully) assumed that Saddam was the leading contributer and funder of all types of Jihadi violence (and there is clear evidence he was a supporter of various Jihad causes).

The justification for going after Hussein in that very document (iirc) is his support for anti-American sentiment.

The whole mess is a textbook case of confirmation bias. The people of america and their leaders had a very specific scape goat in mind when they found out the terrorists were Arab Muslim.

EDIT: it is either the PNAC or other wolfowitz documents made by the same think tank
I'm not sure the motives behind wanting to invade Iraq exactly. Money was definitely made in the venture though.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not sure the motives behind wanting to invade Iraq exactly. Money was definitely made in the venture though.

well, to prove murder, you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was not ideologically motivated to attack Iraq.

ie-> Bush HAD to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fact he and his administration were ignorant of this fact would make the murder case very difficult.

Criminal negligence is a way better fit.

My son read this book and really liked it. He's a big fan of hypothetical history and said it does a good job with the ethical question "Is the president above the law".

Whether Bush is evil incarnate or just a 5-year-old with a shotgun, I think its still matter of the winner deciding the terms. If the Axis won WW2 then Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur and Tibbits all would've been executed for warcrimes.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
My son read this book and really liked it. He's a big fan of hypothetical history and said it does a good job with the ethical question "Is the president above the law".

He is part of the Rebel Alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
My son read this book and really liked it. He's a big fan of hypothetical history and said it does a good job with the ethical question "Is the president above the law".

Whether Bush is evil incarnate or just a 5-year-old with a shotgun, I think its still matter of the winner deciding the terms. If the Axis won WW2 then Truman, Eisenhower, Patton, MacArthur and Tibbits all would've been executed for warcrimes.
My only disagreement with this (and I'm glad your son read the book) is that isn't hypothetical history. At least not yet. Only in that it still is plausible Bush could be brought to a court and tried for something (be it murder or otherwise).

Is it likely? Probably not though.

Originally posted by Robtard
He is trying to sell a book, that's just a fact. That doesn't take away from his point though.

I haven't read it, does he prove beyond the shadow of a doubt or at least within probable cause that Bush lied, fabricated the war etc. etc. etc., or is it full of speculation and what if's?
I could disagree about him trying to make a profit, but that isn't worth discussing.

For the record, before I read any political book I always do a background check on the author to see where they are on the political spectrum, if they seem partisan and so forth. The author of the book is in fact a Democrat which almost stopped me from reading the book thinking it would be incredibly biased.

However, he lashes out at the 'liberal' columnists and pundits just as much as the 'conservative' ones in the book. Not to mention, the case against Bush can't really be biased when he is using Bush and his cronies' own speeches and words and documents by intelligence agencies around the world and so forth and so on.

Like I said, a real case is made in my estimation. I can't understand the law as much as the author obviously does, but even as a lay man, I understand a strong case has been made that a jury might find interesting.

Originally posted by inimalist
well, to prove murder, you need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush was not ideologically motivated to attack Iraq.

ie-> Bush HAD to know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. The fact he and his administration were ignorant of this fact would make the murder case very difficult.

Criminal negligence is a way better fit.
Why does that matter?

As for Bush and 9/11 and Iraq. Bush before the war continues to make innuendo at the fact that 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam are linked. Of course he doesn't directly say it, but everybody (from pundits to average americans to soldiers) made the inference that he was linking the two.

Bush himself later though will remark that he knows there is no connection.

His CIA told him that there was no connection and he told the CIA to find a connection.

Originally posted by BigRed
I don't care what the government says about this war. The war wasn't a just one and still isn't a just one.

There is little hindsight revelation that can argue this point. However, it is not the point being made by the majority of posters who disagree with you, despite not having read the book you recommend. However, the strongest evidence for your own and the authors presumption is that the administration has never made one effort to reconfigure their justification for the war. The only change in rhetoric, other than national security, has been one of questionable patriotism when focused on detractors of the war. There is nothing more patriotic than asking "why" when so many people, foreign or domestic, are dying. So, while the specific details of this conflict are likely never going to be questioned in depth, there is little doubt that it was a matter of national prejudice and poor leadership that got us into it.

Originally posted by inimalist
Actually, if you look at the very PNAC you are promoting, the hawks CLEARLY (though wrongfully) assumed that Saddam was the leading contributer and funder of all types of Jihadi violence (and there is clear evidence he was a supporter of various Jihad causes).

In fact, he was often a leading figure in condemning the actions of fundamentalist followers of Islam.

Originally posted by BigRed
Why does that matter?

As for Bush and 9/11 and Iraq. Bush before the war continues to make innuendo at the fact that 9/11 and Iraq and Saddam are linked. Of course he doesn't directly say it, but everybody (from pundits to average americans to soldiers) made the inference that he was linking the two.

Bush himself later though will remark that he knows there is no connection.

His CIA told him that there was no connection and he told the CIA to find a connection.

that is actually a good point

I think it is worth noting historically, but I get your point here. Whether or not he was primed to think it was Saddam, he knew it wasn't after people like Dick Clarke told him so.

touche

Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
In fact, he was often a leading figure in condemning the actions of fundamentalist followers of Islam.

There is a difference between fundamentalism and Jihad. iirc Saddam financially supported the families of suicide bombers and in 1999 offered asylum to Bin Laden. Politics make strange bedfellows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger

(notice the guardian article is dated 1999)

Originally posted by inimalist
that is actually a good point

I think it is worth noting historically, but I get your point here. Whether or not he was primed to think it was Saddam, he knew it wasn't after people like Dick Clarke told him so.

touche



There is a difference between fundamentalism and Jihad. iirc Saddam financially supported the families of suicide bombers and in 1999 offered asylum to Bin Laden. Politics make strange bedfellows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger

(notice the guardian article is dated 1999)
There is no doubt Saddam was in assocation with certain terrorist organizations. He didn't like Bin Laden though. And Bin Laden certainly didn't like him. There also was no record of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war (of course they all came swarming in after). Also, there is no record that Saddam funded anyone that attacked us.

Besides, Saddam literally had no motivation in attacking us. His army was more depleted than the last time we attacked him in the early '90's and since then, UN sanctions were killing his country.

Originally posted by BigRed
There is no doubt Saddam was in assocation with certain terrorist organizations. He didn't like Bin Laden though. And Bin Laden certainly didn't like him. There also was no record of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war (of course they all came swarming in after). Also, there is no record that Saddam funded anyone that attacked us.

Besides, Saddam literally had no motivation in attacking us. His army was more depleted than the last time we attacked him in the early '90's and since then, UN sanctions were killing his country.

while this might be true for Al Qaeda (and even then there is some reason to believe that Saddam knew of Zarqowi prior to the invasion, though I'm personally skeptical of this being a "link" to anything) "terrorist" is a very loaded term. The PKK for instance, and other Kurdish groups undeniably were in Iraq, though they were anti-Saddam. I can look it up, but I'm sure some Palestinian or other militant likely stayed in Iraq at some point, as Saddam was a supporter of anti-Israel militancy which targeted civilians, call it terrorism or not.

and yes, Bin Laden was opposed to how secular the Iraqi state was, and thus refused (several times) offers of asylum from Saddam. My thought is this is more anti-American politicing than it is a declaration of alliance from mr Hussein.

no, Saddam was no threat to you. Canada never had a reason to be scared of him.

Originally posted by inimalist
while this might be true for Al Qaeda (and even then there is some reason to believe that Saddam knew of Zarqowi prior to the invasion, though I'm personally skeptical of this being a "link" to anything) "terrorist" is a very loaded term. The PKK for instance, and other Kurdish groups undeniably were in Iraq, though they were anti-Saddam. I can look it up, but I'm sure some Palestinian or other militant likely stayed in Iraq at some point, as Saddam was a supporter of anti-Israel militancy which targeted civilians, call it terrorism or not.

and yes, Bin Laden was opposed to how secular the Iraqi state was, and thus refused (several times) offers of asylum from Saddam. My thought is this is more anti-American politicing than it is a declaration of alliance from mr Hussein.

no, Saddam was no threat to you. Canada never had a reason to be scared of him.
It is true that Zarqowi (however you spell it) was in Iraq pre-Invasion at some point. But no intelligence suggested that Saddam actually knew he was there.

What a stupid thread.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
What a stupid thread.
And one you just posted in. How stupid does that make you?

Very insightful by the way.

Originally posted by BigRed
And one you just posted in. How stupid does that make you?

Very insightful by the way.

Go be Anti-bush on a site that's just as ludicrous as your posts.

Originally posted by Vinny Valentine
Go be Anti-bush on a site that's just as ludicrous as your posts.
I'm not anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush. I'm not anti-Bush because I'm a Democrat (I'm a libertarian). I'm not anti-Bush because Comedy Central made it cool. I'm not anti-Bush because the Media tells me.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

You read a book, good for you! It sort of concerns me anytime anyone reads a single opinion on a matter and then becomes so vehement about a cause. If Bush really is accountable for these deaths, congress has failed us yet again, since it would fall upon them to impeach him. They didn't, because for all of their outward rhetoric, they get security briefings and have a better handle on Nat'l Security situations and geo-politics than you or I. Now, go and find an article or book by a non-biased author giving reasons why the war was justified and read it, I'll expect a report on my desk by 8 am tommorrow morning.

Originally posted by tsscls
You read a book, good for you! It sort of concerns me anytime anyone reads a single opinion on a matter and then becomes so vehement about a cause. If Bush really is accountable for these deaths, congress has failed us yet again, since it would fall upon them to impeach him. They didn't, because for all of their outward rhetoric, they get security briefings and have a better handle on Nat'l Security situations and geo-politics than you or I. Now, go and find an article or book by a non-biased author giving reasons why the war was justified and read it, I'll expect a report on my desk by 8 am tommorrow morning.
I knew this would come eventually.

If anyone thinks I'm naive enough to read one book or watch one documentary (for example) and form a whole basis of thought on that, please dismiss those claims.

I formed my thoughts on Iraq, Bush and his criminality long, long before I ever even touched this book. I knew most of the arguments presented by the author before he presented (although some facts were new to me).

This just happened to be the definitive book on the matter IMO.

Originally posted by BigRed
It is true that Zarqowi (however you spell it) was in Iraq pre-Invasion at some point. But no intelligence suggested that Saddam actually knew he was there.

Christopher Hitchens disagrees, and he usually knows his stuff (though he keeps repeating a long discredited report of Iraqi intelligence meeting with Al Qaeda in Eastern Europe).

It really doesn't matter though. It isn't surprising that an Autocratic Dictator would know that someone entered his nation, nor that, given various political contexts, he would extend some form of welcoming. His knowledge of an Al Qaeda operative in his country is nothing close to being involved in 9-11, nor does it come close to justification for invasion.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush. I'm not anti-Bush because I'm a Democrat (I'm a libertarian). I'm not anti-Bush because Comedy Central made it cool. I'm not anti-Bush because the Media tells me.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

You are part of the rebel alliance and a traitor. Take him away!

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm not anti-Bush for the sake of being anti-Bush. I'm not anti-Bush because I'm a Democrat (I'm a libertarian). I'm not anti-Bush because Comedy Central made it cool. I'm not anti-Bush because the Media tells me.

I'm anti-Bush because he engaged in criminality as a President of the United States and that should piss off any American.

Unless you want to actually refute my posts, then you have no business calling them ludicrous. I'm not going to take your word for it.

Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.

Originally posted by KidRock
Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.
Bush apologists certainly would like to chalk it up to an intelligence failure wouldn't they?

Bush controls the intelligence communities. So if they do have any shortcomings (which they did no doubt), then it would be his fault.

The evidence showed Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11 and Saddam would only use WMD's (if he had them) in self-defense against us if we attacked him. Not to attack us. Bush pressured the intelligence to meet his agenda.

Originally posted by KidRock
Declaring war based on evidence presented to you does not make you a criminal.

If anything the CIA or whoever supplied the intelligence should be prosecuted.

Dick Clarke talks about how much pressure was on the intelligence community to find Saddam-911-Al Qaeda links or weapons of mass destruction.

Clarke says the CIA repeatedly told the executive (at least terror experts in the CIA) that there was no link (I'm not sure what Clarke was saying about WMDs) and were made more and more obsolete for that reason.

also, I forget the guy's name, but he was captured and under waterboarding said that Iraq had WMDs. This was one of the most important pieces of evidence used by the current administration to justify the invasion... Man, I should have bookmarked all that Democracy Now! shit.

Originally posted by BigRed
I knew this would come eventually.

If anyone thinks I'm naive enough to read one book or watch one documentary (for example) and form a whole basis of thought on that, please dismiss those claims.

I formed my thoughts on Iraq, Bush and his criminality long, long before I ever even touched this book. I knew most of the arguments presented by the author before he presented (although some facts were new to me).

This just happened to be the definitive book on the matter IMO.

Naive isn't the word. Blinded by an almost religious hatred of Bush, that's it. I have several friends who are exactly the same way.
Look, I'm no Bush apologist, I've disagreed with his policies far more than I've agreed with them. I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning. Unfortunately, you can't have this both ways. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Reagan being presented in exactly the same light, and look at how they're viewed today. The only two presidents of the last century that have been remembered as total assholes are Herbert Hoover (which I would argue is an unfair characterization) and Richard Nixon (who was an evil bastard). Even hard-core Right-wingers are lightening up on Clinton, a man who they wanted to see eviscerated at the town sqaure. I don't care how respected the man who wrote the book is, and I really don't care that he prosecuted the Manson case, which was a slam dunk. He wrote the book to make a buck and gain noteriety, (yes, those can still be deciding factors for a 70-year old who hasn't had his name in the papers for a while) and if you seriously think that Bush should be tried for murder in a U.S. criminal court, then you are not thinking clearly. And yes, this is a dumb thread. And I posted in it.

Originally posted by tsscls
Naive isn't the word. Blinded by an almost religious hatred of Bush, that's it. I have several friends who are exactly the same way.
Look, I'm no Bush apologist, I've disagreed with his policies far more than I've agreed with them. I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning. Unfortunately, you can't have this both ways. I'm old enough to remember Carter and Reagan being presented in exactly the same light, and look at how they're viewed today. The only two presidents of the last century that have been remembered as total assholes are Herbert Hoover (which I would argue is an unfair characterization) and Richard Nixon (who was an evil bastard). Even hard-core Right-wingers are lightening up on Clinton, a man who they wanted to see eviscerated at the town sqaure. I don't care how respected the man who wrote the book is, and I really don't care that he prosecuted the Manson case, which was a slam dunk. He wrote the book to make a buck and gain noteriety, (yes, those can still be deciding factors for a 70-year old who hasn't had his name in the papers for a while) and if you seriously think that Bush should be tried for murder in a U.S. criminal court, then you are not thinking clearly. And yes, this is a dumb thread. And I posted in it.
I've already stated why I'm against Bush. I'm against him because he engaged in acts of criminality. I have no political bias or other ridiculous reason to be against him. I want to see a person come to justice, especially a government official. Just like I would anyone else that engaged in criminality.

If you actually read the original post, nobody with any amount of intelligence actually thinks Bush would be prosecuted in the American courts. It won't happen. Why? Because nobody in America has any balls to actually do it.

I've never eluded to Bush being an idiot. It does take some smarts to do what he did. But he had some good players around him. No doubt about it. However, he was still unfit to be President.

The only 'nutjobs' around here, are those that would allow criminality to go unanswered. It doesn't matter if Joe the garbage man across the street or the President sitting in the Oval Office does it, they should be brought to justice.

Besides 'nutty' would be (for example), thinking Bush blew up the towers to get to Iraq or that Bush is a puppet for higher powers (like the Illuminati). Believing Bush could be a bad guy (yeah, they exist) and be President isn't such a stretch of the imagination.

Originally posted by BigRed
I've already stated why I'm against Bush. I'm against him because he engaged in acts of criminality. I have no political bias or other ridiculous reason to be against him. I want to see a person come to justice, especially a government official. Just like I would anyone else that engaged in criminality.

If you actually read the original post, nobody with any amount of intelligence actually thinks Bush would be prosecuted in the American courts. It won't happen. Why? Because nobody in America has any balls to actually do it.

I've never eluded to Bush being an idiot. It does take some smarts to do what he did. But he had some good players around him. No doubt about it. However, he was still unfit to be President.

The only 'nutjobs' around here, are those that would allow criminality to go unanswered. It doesn't matter if Joe the garbage man across the street or the President sitting in the Oval Office does it, they should be brought to justice.

Then you should extend your definition of criminality to every President we've ever had. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt corrolary? The U.S. as a nation has organized hundreds of coup de'tats in it's history to serve our needs and preserve our national security. Our hands are bloody, but sometimes it's neccesary to ensure our survival as a nation. And sometimes it's just good business. If you really want to read something interesting, I reccomend "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler. It's a short and sweet eye-opener.

Originally posted by tsscls
I have noticed a trend among his detractors though, he's two opposite things at once. He is simultaneously an evil "Emperor Palpitine" who has deliberately masterminded an unjust war for (place your nutty theory here), or he's a bumbling doofus that can't tie his own shoes in the morning.

"He's too dumb, to eat pretzels, apparently smart enough to fix an election."

NOFX

T1RnExvJgt8

This is like suing mcdonalds for making people fat.

Originally posted by BigRed
Bush apologists certainly would like to chalk it up to an intelligence failure wouldn't they?

Bush controls the intelligence communities. So if they do have any shortcomings (which they did no doubt), then it would be his fault.

The evidence showed Saddam wasn't linked to 9/11 and Saddam would only use WMD's (if he had them) in self-defense against us if we attacked him. Not to attack us. Bush pressured the intelligence to meet his agenda.

Sure they would..because that's what it was to anyone that isnt a brain dead paranoid sheep.

And Bush doesn't control the intelligence communities..the directors of each branch control them.

Bush acted on information presented to him, I hope any other president would make the same decision.

Like someone else said should we really make our presidents have to doubt themselves whenever they need to make a decision?

So Bugliosi claims that Paula Jones shouldn't have been allowed to sue Clinton because of the importance of maintaining the dignity of the Presidency, but he would advocate trying a sitting president for murder? This is a real clear thinking individual.

Originally posted by tsscls
Then you should extend your definition of criminality to every President we've ever had. Ever heard of the Monroe Doctrine? The Roosevelt corrolary? The U.S. as a nation has organized hundreds of coup de'tats in it's history to serve our needs and preserve our national security. Our hands are bloody, but sometimes it's neccesary to ensure our survival as a nation. And sometimes it's just good business. If you really want to read something interesting, I reccomend "War Is A Racket" by Smedley Butler. It's a short and sweet eye-opener.
Unfortunately, certain blood on our hands was necessary. Doesn't make it right.

However, no necessity can be sought from the Iraq War with regards to American interests or American security.

Originally posted by BigRed
no necessity can be sought from the Iraq War with regards to American interests or American security.

unfortunately, much the same can be said of American endeavors around the world, especially in Latin America, where it was the boogy man of communism...

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
This is like suing mcdonalds for making people fat.
No, that was a frivolous court case that calls for tort reform.

This however, has basis in fact. Even as I said, if you don't agree that Bush should be charged with murder, certainly you can look at the evidence with an open mind and find that he did engage in lying and deception to get into a war that placed soldiers in harm way and cost a crapload of money.

Originally posted by BigRed
What? Okay, let's see.

We diverted resource, attention and soldiers away from Afghanistan and specifically the Taliban and Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. We didn't fight the war in Afghanistan even in the beginning as hard as we should have and instead let terrorists (like Bin Laden himself) to spill over into Pakistan and now Pakistan is becoming unstable and they have a nuke. The Taliban is also resurging in Afghanistan and may be stronger than before we even went in. In Iraq, sure a dictator was removed, but there are dictators all over the world that have probably done worse than Saddam and we aren't going after them. Iraq is in shambles, 100,000 Iraqis dead, their families effected, over a million moved to other neighboring countries and even though under Saddam (a dictator), they had stability; at least they had stability. Not to mention, four thousand dead soldiers and three trillion dollars for a War that has no meaning to America. No security reason. No 'fighting for our freedoms' situation. Just a purely an invasion of aggression.

Apparently you didn't read my post when I said it wasn't right.

I'm a libertarian. Libertarians believe in a foreign policy of non-interventionism. If I had my way, the last over one hundred years of American interventionism (outside of WW2) wouldn't have happened. None of the business in the South American countries, the Asian countries or the Middle Eastern countries. None of the countless dead Americans, countless dead civilians in other countries and countless dollars spent on meaningless crap to spread the American empire. But I can't go back and charge corpses.

We can however charge President Bush. He is alive and we can bring him to justice for crimes.

The only blood that unfortunately must be on our hands (but in a perfect world, it wouldn't) is the slaughtering of Indians and Mexicans to expand the United States in the beginning.

Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time.
My point is this, be prepared to try Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton too. Get a jury ready for Obama. You are naive.

Originally posted by KidRock
Sure they would..because that's what it was to anyone that isnt a brain dead paranoid sheep.

And Bush doesn't control the intelligence communities..the directors of each branch control them.

Bush acted on information presented to him, I hope any other president would make the same decision.

Like someone else said should we really make our presidents have to doubt themselves whenever they need to make a decision?
The CIA answers to the President and the President only. Therefore, the President is in charge of the CIA. He rides and falls with their success and failures.

Bush was in a haste for war. Why didn't he take Chirac's advise and wait for the Blix's inspections to finish in Iraq? Bush said we were 'forced' to War. Bullshit. The evidence doesn't suggest that in the least.

And quit arguing with a Republican. I just told you my completely detached and logical reasoning as to why it was necessary to go into Iraq. I never argued the morality of it.

Originally posted by tsscls
Pakistan has had nukes for quite some time.
My point is this, be prepared to try Carter, Bush Sr. and Clinton too. Get a jury ready for Obama. You are naive.
You can keep calling me naive but I'm not going to take your word for it. And to keep repeating it doesn't mean it is true.

Are you going to respond to anything else I said?

Pakistan having nukes 'for quite some time' doesn't negate that we caused them to become unstable.

And history shouldn't negate present criminality either. And the fact that we didn't prosecute historical criminality shouldn't negate our prudence to do it in the present.

Originally posted by tsscls
And quit arguing with a Republican. I just told you my completely detached and logical reasoning as to why it was neceesary to go into Iraq. I never argued the morality of it.
I didn't argue the morality of it either.

I argued why your logic was illogical and the reasoning unreasonable. We could of course discuss morality.

You're main reason was that it took the 'pressure off of us' in Afghanistan. That's where we should have been. But then you go on to say 'as occupiers'. What the ****? We became invaders and occupiers in Iraq.

so how many books have sold? sounds like a world wide money maker

Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, much the same can be said of American endeavors around the world, especially in Latin America, where it was the boogy man of communism...
99% of our foreign interventionism has been deadly indirectly or directly in terms of blood and treasure for decades all around the globe and there are too many apologists around that idea instead of confronting it with constructive criticism and changing foreign policy for the better.

Originally posted by Jack Daniels
so how many books have sold? sounds like a world wide money maker
Around 100,000 copies.

Originally posted by tsscls
So Bugliosi claims that Paula Jones shouldn't have been allowed to sue Clinton because of the importance of maintaining the dignity of the Presidency, but he would advocate trying a sitting president for murder? This is a real clear thinking individual.
Uh...you should read the book. He never suggests charging Bush with criminality while he is a sitting President. He specifically mentions how the Constitution has rules against that in some form.

And Bugliosi doesn't argue what you just suggested. He argued that the case should have been postponed like they are allowed to do.

Originally posted by BigRed
Uh...you should read the book. He never suggests charging Bush with criminality while he is a sitting President. He specifically mentions how the Constitution has rules against that in some form.

And Bugliosi doesn't argue what you just suggested. He argued that the case should have been postponed like they are allowed to do.

Even so, Harry Truman set a precedence which allowed presidents to invoke executive privilege even after the expiration of their terms, which would render the prosecution of one a moot point. Does he mention how you would get around this in his book? If so, I might read it.

You could argue that Nixon wasn't allowed to invoke it, but he was up to a point.
The supreme court stated, "To read the Article II powers of the President as providing an absolute privilege as against a subpoena essential to enforcement of criminal statutes on no more than a generalized claim of the public interest in confidentiality of nonmilitary and nondiplomatic discussions would upset the constitutional balance of a workable government"
I believe the Iraq war and any information regarding it would be considered of both military and diplomatic concerns.

I do believe Bugliosi (from memory) discusses both of these matters.

Originally posted by BigRed
I do believe Bugliosi (from memory) discusses both of these matters.

Page #'s please?

I just bought the book on Amazon, and I'd like to flip right ahead to these (IMO) important arguments when I recieve it next week.

Originally posted by tsscls
Even so, Harry Truman set a precedence which allowed presidents to invoke executive privilege even after the expiration of their terms, which would render the prosecution of one a moot point. Does he mention how you would get around this in his book? If so, I might read it.
Actually, one of Truman's aide has since said they were wrong and had no legal basis for it but Congress simply didn't call his bluff and they set this precedent.

A precedent isn't a law. Bush of course may try to invoke this Truman BS, but I'm sure the SC would knock it down.

Originally posted by tsscls
I just bought the book on Amazon, and I'd like to flip right ahead to these (IMO) important arguments when I recieve it next week.
I'm glad you bought it. Off the top of my head I can't tell you what page he does. I'm pretty sure he does. Once I get the book in front of me, I'll direct you to it.

At least you are showing curiosity.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm glad you bought it. Off the top of my head I can't tell you what page he does. I'm pretty sure he does. Once I get the book in front of me, I'll direct you to it.

At least you are showing curiosity.

You can't have a truly informed debate unless you a well-versed in both sides of the argument.

Originally posted by tsscls
You can't have a truly informed debate unless you a well-versed in both sides of the argument.
I'm informed of the Truman thing.

I don't know if it is specifically mentioned in a book though.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'm informed of the Truman thing.

I don't know if it is specifically mentioned in a book though.
I'll tell you what, since I've got the book ordered, I'll put a hold on all discussion of it and the issues it mentions. I will be sure to bump this thread and tell you how full of shit you are when I read it.

Originally posted by tsscls
I'll tell you what, since I've got the book ordered, I'll put a hold on all discussion of it and the issues it discusses. I will be sure to bump this thread and tell you how full of shit you are when I read it.

I'd prefer you go point by point and refute everything in the original posts. I'll glady admit defeat if you can do it with clear, logical, reasoned points with evidence.

Originally posted by BigRed
I'd prefer you go point by point and refute everything in the original posts. I'll glady admit defeat if you can do it with clear, logical, reasoned points with evidence.

Sounds good. I look forward to getting it.

any who thinks bush isnt a murderer, go SHOOT your eyes off, since they dont seem to be doing u much good anyway.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
any who thinks bush isnt a murderer, go SHOOT your eyes off, since they dont seem to be doing u much good anyway.

I will do that. As soon as I figure out what I'm going to shoot them out of.
Some sort of modified shotgun? I'll need a safe area to shoot them off in, maybe I'll look up some local shooting ranges. Finally, I'll need a target. Although this may be extraneous given the fact that I won't be able to see, because i'm shooting my eyes off.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
any who thinks bush isnt a murderer, go SHOOT your eyes off, since they dont seem to be doing u much good anyway.

exactly.well said.Clinton and Bush are BOTH mass murderers.There wont be anything done about Bush though.as anybody in the united states knows,theres one different law for politicians and one different one for citizens.politicians get away with crimes constantly that we would NEVER be able to get away with.Presidents in particular,can get away with anything.for example,both dick nixon and Bill clinton lied under oath to a supreme court yet no punishment was ever given to nixon or clinton.the worst nixon had to do was quit his job.sheesh what severe punishment that is. Great thread Big Red.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
politicians get away with crimes constantly that we would NEVER be able to get away with.

dont forget celebrities and rich people

true.But since the thread is about George Bush I didnt feel the need to mention that.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is a difference between fundamentalism and Jihad. iirc Saddam financially supported the families of suicide bombers and in 1999 offered asylum to Bin Laden. Politics make strange bedfellows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/feb/06/julianborger

(notice the guardian article is dated 1999)

Oh, I'm not arguing that point. But I do know that he, while a nut in his own right, was often a source of condemnation when it came to the actions of other terrorists.

Probably something that sticks out to me about Bush (and this is just to keep from picking out the obvious horrid policy blunders (and I ****ing hate sugarcoating it -- to be honest, I think Bush is a criminal)) is his arrogance and cocky attitude. Just that smug look he always has on his face, especially when giving speeches.

And especially when being confronted on his '****-ups'. I noticed this specifically in his interview on Larry King Live on Tuesday. He will not outright admit he made mistakes. He'll say mistakes were made. But he won't say he made the mistakes. I don't like that at all. Makes me want to punch him in the ****ing face.

Seriously, I was always hoping for a day to come when Bush would come visit Cincinnati (he sure likes Cincinnati -- used this location as a starting point to win over the American people for his atrocious Iraq invasion) and we'd cross paths. He has that smug look on his face and he offers me his hand to shake and I keep my hands firmly by my side and don't give that bastard the respect he doesn't deserve in shaking his hand.

The fact that he has/had the label of Presidency over him makes no difference.

I would never be able to find muster to be in the same room or even in eyesight live with the last 3 presidents we have had.

Why not? Even if they're reptilians in disguise, I'm sure they're all cordial in person.

Originally posted by Robtard
Why not? Even if they're reptilians in disguise, I'm sure they're all cordial in person.

Especially with a camera on them.


No matter how delicious Mr. Parker looks, they would never eat a human on camera.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/18/pelosi-open-prosecution-bush-administration-officials/

To add to the debate.

If this were to happen, my dream trial would involve each bush administration member being stuffed into the same cubicle Adolf Eichmann had to stand in at the same time and to have the sentencing include the complete liquidation of all the guilty party's assets into a stimulus package distributed among all taxpaying americans making below 200k as compensation for all the money they stole and for the danger their policies put us into.

Originally posted by BigRed
I just finished reading The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder by Vincent Bugliosi. Most may recognize this man as the prosecutor for the Charles Manson cases. He is a very well respected and extremely credible prosecutor/lawyer. I'm sure many right off the bat of hearing that Title or seeing it at a bookstore would immediately cast it off as 'fringe' or ludicrous. Two reasons that may happen: 1.) People find the notion of even prosecuting a President of the United absolutely impossible or for some, it shouldn't even happen. That would hurt America or whatever reason they want to give. 2.) To then prosecute the President for murder and specifically, over four thousand murders seems borderline insanity.

However, dismiss all of those preconceived notions you may or may not have about Vincent, about the Title of the book and about President George W. Bush. The author does a remarkable job of disspelling all of those notions and building a staggering case against the President that seems plausible and feels you with hope that someday it may actually come to frution; even if ten years from now. I myself am going to go out on a limb and suggest that if you read this book in full and aren't outraged, you are missing a heart and a soul (and especially a brain). Now that isn't to say I think you should actually agree with Vincent in that Bush should be charged with the deaths of over four thousand dead American soldiers. However, I believe you would concur with Vincent and with others, that at the least Bush has committed crimes and should be placed in a court of justice to adhere to these crimes.

There are certain points I want to highlight in my review. There is an incredible amount of content here. So I'll try to be quick. And even if you haven't read the book, I do this in such a way where it doesn't matter. Also, some of the later ones are points where I disagree with Vincent's assessment of a given situation.

Starting with page thirteen Vincent starts with the above point I made. He suggests dismissing Thoreau's statement that 'it is very difficult to see what is right in front of our eyes'. Get rid of the notion that just because he is the President, he can't engage in something of great criminality. For some, regular Americans and politicians alike, the Presidency is something of an institution to be protected at all costs or else we harm our image as America and Americans. I would say, we harm our image as America and Americans if we tolerate criminality from a President.

Going to page seventeen makes an incredible point (one of many). After the WMD reason for going to war against Saddam in Iraq was dismissed, Bush and his cronies came up with the reason for going to war was to 'free the Iraqi people from Saddam's despotic rule'. But we all know, we all know we would never have gone to war if that was the main reason from the beginning. No American would have accepted that war. As Vincent says, "If that is justification for going to war; over the last seventy-five years, every day of every year we would be in wars all over the globe." As he goes on to say, "We would have been fighting, in among other places, Russia, China, and Cambodia. At this moment, we'd be fighting in Darfur, Iran, North Korea , Cuba, etc." To further illustrate his point, Vince suggets, "What if we invaded Russia in 1950? To free the Russian people from Stalin's rule? After losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in a brutal, bloody war, we topple Stalin. We bring him to justice and execute him. We then go home and then proceed to invade China to free the Chinese people of Mao's rule. If this sounds crazy to you, its because it is." I agree Vincent. We don't have the treasure and we certainly don't have the blood to die for all of mankind to be free.

Jumping to page thirty-five. If this section of the book doesn't infuriate you, nothing will. Getting the past (for now) the idea that Bush lied and manipulated the country to go to war, he sent the soldiers to war without the proper equipment. That's abominable as Vincent says. Soldiers were literally writing home asking for loved ones to send body armor.

And getting to the even more infuriating part, if this doesn't make you want to punch Rumsfeld in the face, you're insane. Donald spoke to a group of soldiers December 8th, 2004 and a National Guard Specalist stood up and asked Rumsfeld, "Troops have to forage for 'rusted scrap metal and ballistic glass that's already been shot up, busted, picking the best out of this scrap to put on our vehicles to take into combat'." The soldier goes on to say, "Why do we have to search landfills for armor?"

Rumsfeld responds, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time." As Vincent points out, that statement would only apply if Iraq had invaded us in which case we'd have to make due with what we have. But Bush, Rumsfeld and others had all the time in the world to make preparations for the Iraq War.

Turning to page forty-five now with a fist. Make no mistake about it and as unfortunate as it is, American soldiers have not died for America or Americans. They have not died for this idea of freedom. They have died for President Bush and his cronies. I've felt this for a while, but Vincent definitely makes note of it. And of course, Bush, Cheney, Rove and others all skipped out on going to war during their respective generations time.

And a scary poll shown by Vincent that over '90% of the United States Soldiers as late as 2006 thought they were fighting in Iraq due to Iraq and Saddam being involved in 9/11'. That is utterly grotesque that they are dying for something that doesn't exist.

A funny point (yet also disturbing) on page fifty-seven. Vincent makes note of the fact that out of the 2,535 days of the Bush Presidency, Bush has spent (during a time of war mind you) 908 of those days on vacation (or 36% of his Presidency). That's two and a half years of a less than seven year Presidency (at the time this book was written) on vacation. That's incredible.

Vincent brings up a shocking, but entirely true point (that I'm ashamed of myself) on page seventy-five. A very sad tale is that the only people asked to sacrifice in this country over the Iraq War have been the soldiers and the families of those soldiers. Which makes up a very small segment of the population. That's sad. Vincent shows a quote from an Iraqi soldier that states, "The president can say we're a country at war all he wants. We're not. The military is at war. And the military families are at war. Everybody else is shopping, or watching American Idol." I thought that was a poignant quote myself.

Once more, another point you don't want to miss by Vincent on page ninety-two. Some will say, "Bush can't be prosecuted for murder of the soldiers if Congress, by a joint congressional resolution, authorized him to use force against Iraq." He answers that by saying, "The congressional authorization is no legal defense against murder." Consent of the victim is a defense for crimes such as theft and rape. But not murder. Also, even if it was law (consent being a defense for murder) it would be 'fraud vitiates consent'. The Congress were lied to just as much as the American people and the American soldiers.

Just a small quote I want to bring to everyone's attention on page ninety-seven. One that packs a powerful punch and can't be properly answered in my view. The example by Vincent is, "What difference does it make if someone intends to kill person B or doesn't intended to kill B but intends to do an act that he knows will kill B?" Therefore to me and apparently Vincent, there is no difference between being killed by Saddam and being killed by America.



Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims. It's not murder; they put those uniforms on knowing they could be killed. Soldiers are supposed to be willing to risk their lives. If it was my grandma in her nightgown then I'd think it was murder. Soldiers dying isn't murder, they're soldiers. They're supposed to get shot at. It's like saying an Olympic swimming athlete isn't supposed to get wet. If Bush must be prosecuted for murder then it's not for any terrorists who die, either, but for the 100s of 1,000s of civilians who died due to American actions. And if any of those civilians were adult males with guns then I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for their deaths either. Please, for God's sake, cut the PC bullcrap already. I'd never put on a uniform and go and die, but if I did put on a uniform, I wouldn't do it with the attitude that I couldn't or shouldn't get killed.

Originally posted by UKR
Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims. It's not murder; they put those uniforms on knowing they could be killed. Soldiers are supposed to be willing to risk their lives. If it was my grandma in her nightgown then I'd think it was murder. Soldiers dying isn't murder, they're soldiers. They're supposed to get shot at. It's like saying an Olympic swimming athlete isn't supposed to get wet. If Bush must be prosecuted for murder then it's not for any terrorists who die, either, but for the 100s of 1,000s of civilians who died due to American actions. And if any of those civilians were adult males with guns then I don't think anyone should be prosecuted for their deaths either. Please, for God's sake, cut the PC bullcrap already. I'd never put on a uniform and go and die, but if I did put on a uniform, I wouldn't do it with the attitude that I couldn't or shouldn't get killed.
Okay. I'm not a liberal. So before you get your Republican panties in a bunch, relax.

No. They put that uniform on for the Commander in Chief thinking they were dying for American freedoms and for justice over 9/11. Bush lied to them. And they died over that lie.

And I hate PC probably more than you do.

Originally posted by BigRed
Okay. I'm not a liberal. So before you get your Republican panties in a bunch, relax.

No. They put that uniform on for the Commander in Chief thinking they were dying for American freedoms and for justice over 9/11. Bush lied to them. And they died over that lie.

And I hate PC probably more than you do.


Thank you for the clarification. And I must break it to you...no man hates political correctness more than I do.

This is a great thread based on the material of the title itself-- a summary of eight years of the most atrocious presidency in the young history of the United States of America.

When British pundit David Frost interviewed Richard Nixon in that fateful interview and the Tricky Dick claimed that any actions perpetrated by the president publicly viewed as bad, disconcerting, and harmful to the society and well-being of American citizens is not illegal sealed the deal for future administrations both in the White House and Congressional/Senate houses. George W Bush and Dick Cheney would later reminisce on Nixon's nonchalant words to justify their eight years of ass-wiping the Constitution.

Murder involving casualties of Americans in uniform probably should not be classified as "murder" since the very definition of uniformed Americans constitutes this thing called "obedience" or "loyalty" or whatever. If you want to call it serving your country to fight the evildoers, whoever these evildoers might be, then that's what it is. The raw statistics of the death tolls (and it seems Americans are more fascinated about death than the Egyptians ever were) of this desert blundering is over 4200 dead Americans and roughly 50000 wounded Americans. "Wounded" refers not only to visible physical injuries like torn limbs and bleeding gashes, it refers to more the deadlier Post Tramautic Stress Disorder that has affected thousands in exponential numbers every year since 2003. Bear in mind, the 4200 dead does not include the suicides linked directly to PTSD. These gungho Americans fresh off from sucking the **** of violent video games and movies actually see the aftermath of dead Iraqis and the aftermath of their dead friends whom they were just talking to five minutes prior.

Big deal right, according to any detractors of my little detailed war paragraph. It's war, isn't it? That's what happens in a war. Yet, this isn't a war. It's a hostile takeover of a country that was wiped clean eighteen years ago.

In the pages prior to this post, people seem unclear of the motives of monkey-ears and coke-addict Bush as to why he chose to lay siege upon poor Iraq. Well, in 1991, Saddam Hussein was a bigshot and a bad man in his own right. The world rightfully frowns on genocide and nobody likes seeing 1 million Kurds perish in phosphorus gas. Neither do people relish invasion as what happened to Kuwait. Well, Iraq is quickly decimated. Desert Storm rips more bombs on its land than the entire Vietnam War three times over. Saddam's military might (what little there was) crumbled to nothing-- no airports, no air fields, no depots, no armories, no biological weapon facilities, not one damn thing survived. Much graver abominations occurred in the aftermath: Baghdad lost all electricity in over 90% of its neighborhoods, cholera affected every water supply, the only country in the Middle East with the exception of Israel that was the pinnacle of healthcare and educational institutions fell into desolate ruin and destitute poverty. Saddam was in defeat but unwilling to be taken into custody. Yet, Geneva Conventions and the United Nations saw no need for the United States to overthrow Hussein and his country for he was in no violation to have that treatment fabricated. George Herbert Walker Bush smartly pulled his troops out, but dumbly kept sanctions on Saddam Hussein keeping the man in power but not allowing the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country and infrastructure to its pre-1991 days.

The son Bush always felt disturbed and perplexed by his father's decision. He was incompetent on his own to make any sense of the matter, and his posse began building up a plan that ultimately became known worldwide as the PNAC-- a plan to dominate the Middle East in securing strategic oil pipelines connecting Dubai to the Caspian Sea to Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf. A clause in the project also guaranteed more free passes to the Zionist Jews of Israel to annex and occupy more regions of Palestinian and Arabian land, a move that thrilled AIPAC and most pro-Israeli members of Congress and the Senate. That whole project is what the young, blinded, foolish American soldiers and Marines are fighting for whether they know it or not.

This thread is about murder and talks about war. People here have mentioned previously all the "wonderful" bloody messes American rulers have gotten ourselves into. In my opinion, America has had only two justifiable wars: the American revolt against the British (it was not a Revolution) and World War II. The first World War was us collecting European debt and selling it off to bankrupt countries and makes us top dogs financially, a move that backfired on Wall Street ten years later. The Civil War was pathetic, race-littered, and brotherly love all in the same bowl. Vietnam was shameful and bombastic. The hundreds of battles that decimated the Indians and Mexicans leaves us still with suspician and doubt about them even after so many decades. Our endless twentieth century coups and assassinations of foreign leaders is enough to make your head spin.

Bush is merely following his predecessors, but he is taking more glee in them, and his only contribution to the maltreatment is standing in front of us with a sly carsalesman grin and lying to us and smiling because he's lying. The Iraq and Afghanistan War has murdered at least 100000 and displaced permanently over 5 million-- the people cannot return to their land because they will die if they do.

A far more sinister event has been perpetrated by Bush himself that convicts him truly of murder. A blatant, most foul act that past presidents could only dream of getting away fully with... and one person of the biased American media fully extrapolated upon before others of his ilk helped him carry the torch. Alternative media in America had long since known about this, but MSNBC pundit Keith Olbermann was the first man of the Big Three networks to first break the truth to dumbfounded Americans about waterboarding methods OK'd by the Oval Office-- an OK straight from the mouths of Cheney and Bush. Now is torture murder? Well, not unless the victim dies people might say. Ha, ha... waterboarded victims have perished under Bush's watch and many Muslims and Muslim-Americans have been detained in abominable places such as Gitmo and black cells in Georgia (the country) and have perished. You want acts of murder? Pat Tillman, the man who gave up his football career to "serve for the common good of all" died of friendly fire... or was it so "friendly"? Bush used his underlings to hide the truth from the man's parents who dredged for years before the truth was finally revealed reluctantly. How about the haphazard equipment as our threadstarter reported? Not significant grounds of murder but of negligence.

If you don't want to prosecute this piece of refuse for murder, there is plenty of prosecutable pieces to stick. Some of the biggest crimes have hit our finances that shrivel Iraq to pieces. The man is guilty of heinous proportions and he is not the only one.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Especially with a camera on them.


No matter how delicious Mr. Parker looks, they would never eat a human on camera.

god,for the last freaking time,stop saying that I share Deanos beliefs that there are lizard people walking amongst us. I have told Deano many times to stick to facts instead of theorys,that he makes himself look bad when he says there is Lizard people amongst us.Thanks again robtard for showing your lack of credibility you have aound here.Not only do you defend that foolish kid A.C no matter how childish he acts,but you cant even get the user name right here on who believes what.way to go.same goes for you as well Dadudemon.

Originally posted by Mr Parker
god,for the last freaking time,stop saying that I share Deanos beliefs that there are lizard people walking amongst us. I have told Deano many times to stick to facts instead of theorys,that he makes himself look bad when he says there is Lizard people amongst us.Thanks again robtard for showing your lack of credibility you have aound here.Not only do you defend that foolish kid A.C no matter how childish he acts,but you cant even get the user name right here on who believes what.way to go.


TL and crappy writing: DR




You also quoted the wrong person, buddy.

Originally posted by UKR
Just what the Hell is wrong with you liberal dumbasses? They're SOLDIERS. Not a bunch of female rape victims.

what about the female soldiers who are being gang raped and murdered by other soldiers while the defense administration looks the other way and tells the families the women were suicide victims?